jpgirth Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Brunell will go to Gibbs and tell him either directly or indirectly that it's time to give Ramsey a shot. This is how Gibbs gains undying loyalty of his players. This will build long term success. Guys, this ship we're on is in the middle of a one hell of a hurricane. And there is only one captain I want driving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by freakofthenorth I completely agree. We tend to compare Gibbs' season w/ the likes of Bill Parcells, and even Couglin, to some extent. However, there success is directly related to the level of player continuity there. In each case, there was little turnover. This can answer the other points brought up about if Brunell is terrible the whole year, then what? I am almost certain that Brunell's performance will improve dramatically as the season progresses. I can't agree here. The Cowboys have had lots of turnover - new QB, new RB, new WR, changes on the O-line. Their defense has been pretty stable but our D, with all of the changes, is better at this point. Dallas has an edge in that Parcells is in his second year. The Giants have had less turnover but still start with a new QB and some significant changes on defense. By the way - I think the Giants are the Vikings of 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if they finish out of the playoffs. The Skins have no excuses compared to the other two teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 We can all pretty much agree that the real problem here is team chemistry, w/ all the news players, etc. I can tell you that I was NOT thinking that before Gibbs made his announcement that Brunell will remain in the games. That comment can really define this franchise...at the very least, it shows Gibb's character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by Butz65 I can't agree here. The Cowboys have had lots of turnover - new QB, new RB, new WR, changes on the O-line. Their defense has been pretty stable but our D, with all of the changes, is better at this point. Dallas has an edge in that Parcells is in his second year. The Giants have had less turnover but still start with a new QB and some significant changes on defense. By the way - I think the Giants are the Vikings of 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if they finish out of the playoffs. The Skins have no excuses compared to the other two teams. To be honest, I don't know the specifics here. It seemed to me that, regardless of an average off-season turnover, these teams seemed to maintain their player base. Maybe that's not such a good example...the point remains, that a major problem w/ us is continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bat~man Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 thats all good and everything but when does it come to the point of trying to bring stability and looking like its just a buddy system , yea my buddy is a QB he stinks but since hes my pal and a good guy i will let him lose 99% of the games this season =\ im ready to mold the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Continuity at the price of winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Brunell sucks! He sucks! Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks! The only continuity you get with Brunell is that the team will continue to suck. He can't throw the ball downfield, so the other team stacks the box. The other team stacks the box, and Clinton Portis can't run (the other thing Joe Gibbs has yet to realize is that Clinton Portis is not Riggins). Ramsey threw three picks against the Giants, but is that all you remember? Do you not remember how he almost led the team to a comeback? How he would have tied the game had Gardener caught that pass in the end zone that hit him right in the hands? If Gardener catches that pass, and the Redskins tie that game up, go into OT with all the momentum and pull out a win, and then they bring back Brunell and he sucks it up like he has done, are you still begging for continuity? Think about this, is the reason you want Brunell to stay in because Rod Gardener dropped a pass right to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Continuity and rhythm will come with time. I expect the Redskins to be the most dangerous team in the league the second half of the season. No one is going to want to play us... because by then the kinks will be worked out and Gibbs "time of possesion" demoralizing style will grind on opponents. My concern is with a perceived "uh-oh.. here we go again" tensing and tightening of the team after adversity striked. You could just see it Sun. night, as soon as Reed scores the Redskins got tight and simply failed to execute from that point on... whether on offense.... special teams.... and even the defense to a certain extent late in the game. When the team believes they can overcome any adversity.... which may be predicated on the offense answering with a score after big play by the opposing team... the Redskins will become a true Gibbs team and win on a consistent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Bingo. Stand by your man.....uh I mean QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by Butz65 I can't agree here. The Cowboys have had lots of turnover - new QB, new RB, new WR, changes on the O-line. Their defense has been pretty stable but our D, with all of the changes, is better at this point. Dallas has an edge in that Parcells is in his second year. The Giants have had less turnover but still start with a new QB and some significant changes on defense. By the way - I think the Giants are the Vikings of 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if they finish out of the playoffs. The Skins have no excuses compared to the other two teams. You can not compare us to other teams. The personnel, personalities, talent, devotion, injuries are all different. I agree with this thought. I have been a believer in Gibbs and company. I believe this is a process. Thanks for the postitive thought. Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.